Queen-side attacks - Focus?

As I get better at chess (and I am, thanks to this incedible site), I find that I can no longer count on a win through a full frontal attack on the King side. My opponents are better, as are their defences, and I am forced to pay more attention to other areas of the board.

One alternative is a Queenside attack.

But the focus and goals of a Queenside attack are far less obvious that on the Kingside. You can't just strip away the enemy defences and reveal the Man behind the curtain. It is quite possible to crush your way through the ice of the Queenside and end up as lost as Franklin* in his Quest for the NorthWest Passage.

Can someone post games or articles that show examples of good Queenside attacks?  What goals should you keep in mind when launching such attacks? What are you trying to achieve?

All the best to chess.com and its worldwide following in 2011.

Genghis

*(What can I say about that analogy? - I'm Canadian!)

You are mistaken to say that at a certain level you can't attack on the kingside; all top level players are capable of attacking and have had some real gems, even against other top players. It doesn't happen all the time, but it happens. You just need a good enough attacking position: one with bishops pointing there and space restricting their defensive pieces, stuff like that.

But the point of a queenside attack is to secure good squares for yourself and after claiming it as essentially yours eventually lay siege to the pawns.

Someone got a game?

Elubas said,

"You are mistaken to say that at a certain level you can't attack on the kingside"

Please re-read my post. I didn't say that.

"Someone got a game? "

Yes. Nine. You have six. Are you suggesting we should not post while active games are in progress? Debate it with management if you think so.

".....the point of a queenside attack is to secure good squares for yourself and after claiming it as essentially yours eventually lay siege to the pawns."

Thank you. I appreciate the advice but it is very general. Do you happen to have actual games that would prove your point? Because that's what I'm looking for. Games that will show how Queenside attacks can change the nature of an encounter.

Life is all about mastering the skills you have been given. I haven't reached that point yet, which is why I'm still asking. Just looking for direction.

Genghis.

There's a strategy called the "Minority Attack" that can often be used to create a Queen-side initiative.  There's lots written about it in more advanced texts and all over the net. Here's something basic, to get you started:

http://www.expert-chess-strategies.com/minority-attack.html

In a queenside attack the objective is to "checkmate" (or just capture) the queen.

Before the opponent's king has castled, the objective of a queenside attack is usually to inflict pins against the opponent's king and win material. or take the queen's knight pawn square and infiltrate.   if the opponent's king has castled, the objective is to place a heavy piece on the 7th rank which cannot be easily chased away.

The purpose of the queenside attack is to play Nc7+ and fork the king and rook.

Queenside attacks are only supposed to happen after your opponent castles queenside.

He who thinks an attack cannot be done without a King to attack is missing a fundamental part of chess.

An attack on a position where the King is not (may be the queenside or the Kingside) may have the goal of winning material, creating a passed pawn, or achieving such a superiority there that the pieces are able to conduct an attack on the King from their forward base in enemy territory.

Here's a nice example of a well-conducted queenside attack

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1026975

It's necessary to involve your queen in a queenside attack for it to be successful.

In grandmaster games, a queenside attack only occurs in the form of kingside attack deferred.

During mutual attacks on the queenside, the player who strikes first (by queening) often will be the winner.

The first recorded game featuring a queenside attack dates back to 1714 when Allard Françias, a french player of some what dubious reputation, had mistaken his opponents queen for a king due to an overly ornate and gaudy set.  He preceded to launch what he thought was a mating attack however it was on the wrong side of the board.

His play in that game was so ineffective that there were fewer than 3 recorded queenside attacks over the next 180 years.

orangehonda, Thats almost like me playing chess against my drunken friend :D

interesting orangehonda, does the queenside attack usually occur in the KID,scillian and opposite side castling ? 

No, and in fact it's never occurred in a KID... ever.

The most common openings leading to a queenside attack are the king's gambit and grunfeld.

I have been under attack on my queenside when I played the KID as black on a number of times !

Thanks, prawneatsprawn and siamesenightmare93 for the links.

One of the common scenarios for a Queenside attack is where the centre is closed like the diagram below. Both players have to go around the centre. Black has more space at the top of the board so is better placed for a kingside attack. White has more space in the bottom left hand corner, so has good chances for a Queenside assault. Most books describe this situation as one that calls for good positional play, and maybe that's all that it is. But it certainly seems harder to formulate a plan if you are on the Queenside, because there may be no immediate way to head for the King.

"I find that I can no longer count on a win through a full frontal attack on the King side. My opponents are better, as are their defences, and I am forced to pay more attention to other areas of the board."

This is where I get my interpretation from. It's a slight exaggeration perhaps, but attacks are just as strong, dangerous, and necessary at any level; the ideas are merely more complex. I'm just saying it's possible your attacks don't work not necessarily because it's not supposed to but it could also be that you need to improve your attacking skill a bit. It's not like getting your king mated is some beginner's trap; it happens to everyone, just that at each higher interval the ideas they miss become more and more subtle. Just wanted to make sure you weren't underestimating kingside attacks just because they weren't working for you, as obviously I can't tell from a single post with no games why the attacks aren't working; whether it's you or the position. I apologize if you thought I was judging too quickly. I didn't mean to.

And about the advice: I know it's general but I like to ramble on about things nobody can see on a board (I just speak from experience, but actually finding examples is quite a pain so I take the easy way out ), so because of the lack of diagrams about what I'm talking about I can see the confusion. Hope it helped a little at least.

I seem to have the same issue. Against a weaker opponent, I can sometimes attack direct to the kingside, mostly when my opponent has castled on that side. As I play more, and my opponents are stronger, I find interest in using openings that are designed for queenside attacks.

Contrary to some some other posts, my experience is different, as an example..

Someone wrote that the purpose of a Queenside attack is N to C7 forking the enemy King and the Rook. Sure, this could be a goal but it's not the purpose of a Q/S attack. The purpose, in my opinion, would be to occupy territory so as to gain a material and positional advantage; ultimately creating an opportunity for overwhelming the King.

A queenside attack (in my opinion) has nothing to do with whether the king castles on the queens side or not. Queenside attacks do not have to wait for an opponent to castle, they can be executed by the type of opening you use combined with what is happening  real-time on the board.

Also, a queenside attack can  absolutely occur throughout the entire game, well after the queens have come off the board.